In the document, Ineos argues that the injunction is necessary to restrain campaigners from mounting unlawful protests against the firm and its suppliers. It says that it is not seeking to stifle campaigners’ lawful and democratic right to protest.

The firm says that it faces an “imminent and real” risk that it will be subjected to unlawful protests.

In the document, the multinational describes a series of posts on social media that it says means the risk is “heightened” and displays “a significant degree of hostility” towards Ineos.

On 13 September, the Guardian asked for a copy of the legal document, known in legal circles as a skeleton argument. The newspaper argued that the skeleton argument was now a public document as it had been presented to the judge and aired in court.

Ineos refused to disclose the document, arguing that while it had been referred to in the open hearing, it did not mean that it was a public document. It added that the document did not address all the issues in the case which had been adjourned.

Campaigner to fight Ineos in court over order curbing fracking protests

Read more

In a series of exchanges with Ineos, the newspaper argued that there was a strong legal presumption in favour of open justice to enable the public to understand and scrutinise the justice system.

The Guardian added that documents referred to in court hearings should be given to the media to help explain to the public what the case was about.

Ineos later argued that, while it believes in the open justice principle, disclosing the skeleton argument would only confuse the public as it had been superseded since the firm intended to present a revised argument to the hearing in November. Last week Ineos handed over the document.